[Exclusive] YouTuber with 600,000 Subscribers Facing 'Account Termination' Dismisses Lawsuit Against Google

App Developers and Individual YouTubers Alike...
Court Rules "Trial Must Be Held in the US"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A domestic YouTuber with over 600,000 subscribers, whose account was terminated, filed a lawsuit against Google, the operator of YouTube, but the court ruled that "the case must be tried in a U.S. court" and dismissed it.

Following a lawsuit between a domestic app development company and Google, the app store operator, over app deletion, a similar ruling was made in a lawsuit filed by an individual YouTuber, stating that "according to the jurisdiction agreement, disputes with Google cannot be legally contested domestically."

According to the court on the 4th, the Civil Division 37 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Park Seokgeun) recently ruled against plaintiff A in the first trial of the lawsuit filed by YouTuber A against Google, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the account termination and damages of 10 million KRW.

In 2018, Google warned that three videos uploaded on A’s YouTube account violated the community guidelines regarding "harassment, cyberbullying, and hate speech," and deleted the videos. Furthermore, citing "three warnings within 90 days," Google terminated the account in early the following year.

A filed a lawsuit contesting this action, but the exclusive international jurisdiction agreement clause in YouTube’s terms of service became an issue. According to the clause, disputing parties must proceed with litigation in the court of California, USA, where Google’s headquarters are located.

During the trial, A’s side argued that "the jurisdiction agreement is invalid as it is 'beyond a reasonably foreseeable scope'." They also pointed out that filing a lawsuit in the U.S. would incur excessive time and costs.

The first trial court ruled that "the jurisdiction agreement in this case is valid and effective between the plaintiff and defendant (Google)," and dismissed A’s claim. Dismissal means the case is concluded without substantive judgment due to failure to meet procedural requirements.

The court stated, "Google, a corporation established under U.S. law, is an internet company conducting business worldwide wherever internet access is available, and YouTube users worldwide can watch each of the plaintiff’s videos," adding, "there is a reasonable connection between the California court and this dispute."

Furthermore, "the plaintiff uploaded videos to the YouTube channel and earned economic profits based on them, so it is difficult to consider them a 'passive consumer of the YouTube channel,'" and ruled that A cannot be regarded as a 'consumer' who is exempt from the jurisdiction agreement under Article 42 of the International Private Law (Jurisdiction of Consumer Contracts).

Since A did not appeal, this ruling became final.

Meanwhile, in a lawsuit filed by a domestic app developer against Google after an app they created and registered was deleted from the app store, the court also confirmed a dismissal ruling in 2020 for similar reasons. The Korea Fair Trade Commission demanded in 2019 that parties disputing with Google be allowed to resolve disputes in the jurisdiction of their resident country’s courts, but Google still stipulates in its terms that cases must be tried in the U.S.